Superior Court Judge Dismisses Mason Street Developer’s Appeal

Demolitions of the former Honda dealership and service center straddling Mason Street have been ongoing for weeks to make way for a multi-story housing development.

Demolished property at site of former Honda dealership. Aug 10, 2026 Photo: Leslie Yager copyright GFP

Luxury residential units have been vigorously advertised in two multi-story buildings marketed as Chilston Court and on Instagram, with hashtags, #GreenwichCT #NewEngland #LuxuryLiving #LuxuryDesign

A feature in The Robb Report about the 78 luxury for sale residences talks about condos and penthouses priced from roughly $4.5 million to upward of $10 million.

The development was approved under the state’s 8-30g affordable housing statute. Rather then rentals, the units will be for sale condos, including the affordable ones.

Many residents have been collectively holding their breath as they anticipated Superior Court Judge Claudia A. Baio’s decision in a lawsuit by the developer against the Greenwich’s Planning & Zoning commission.

Even though the development application was approved by the Commission in 2024, the developer/plaintiff, Mason Street Partners LLC, did not like the modifications that were part of the approval.

Of the 7 modifications in the approval – mostly related to comparability of the market rate to affordable ones, and whether retail use could be included the development – the developer appealed the decision to Superior Court in Hartford, which is their prerogative under 8-30g.

The plaintiff claimed the modifications would “eviscerate the Affordability Plan,” but the court found that the P&Z commission met its burden of proof.

Judge Baio’s August 10 Memorandum of Decision (HHD-CV25-6197979-S) supported all four of the commission’s modifications the plaintiff had challenged.

“…the court finds that the Commission properly approved the application, with modifications, the decision is reasonably supported by the record, and thus, the decision was not arbitrary, illegal, or an abuse of its discretion. Accordingly, the decision of the Commission is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed.”

Demolished property at site of former Honda dealership. Aug 10, 2026 Photo: Leslie Yager copyright GFP

Demolished property at site of former Honda dealership. Aug 10, 2026 Photo: Leslie Yager copyright GFP

Comparability

The judge said the plaintiff’s comparability analysis was based on the inclusion of certain select units for comparative purposes, omitting other units and using “median” determinations, resulting in a higher calculation of comparability.

The plaintiff argued the standard for comparability was 65-70% size differential between market rate units and affordable.

The commission had pressed the developer to make the affordable units closer in size to the market rate units to make them more “comparable.”

Their modification #1 said, “Affordable units with the same number of bedrooms as the market rate units shall have not less than 90% of the average usable square footage of their comparable market rate units.”

The plaintiff argued to P&Z that their ratios were permissible because they were for-sale units, and market rate units would be entitled to be larger and to be upgraded, “because unlike rental units, they will never change status and be designated affordable.”

To argue their project had sufficient comparability, they cited other developments including 62 Mason Street, although that was not an 8-30g, and market rate data comparisons with towns including New Canaan and Westport, as well as data relating to applications involving for-sale 8-30g units in Wallingford and Milford, and an approved project in Farmington.

The court supported the Commission that the data was unrelated, and carried “little if any weight in determinations to be made relating to this project.”

The court upheld the commission’s assertion that comparable size and workmanship were indeed the standard for affordable housing.

The judge agreed and went on to write, “…the Commission conducted the proper weighing of the evidence and found, based on that evidence, that the affordable units would be considerably smaller than their market rate equivalents and wold be located in potentially less desirable areas.”

Retail Use

As for the modification denying retail use in the site plan, the judge also sided with the Commission, saying the non-residential uses must be eliminated.

The condition said, “Prior to zoning permit request, site plans shall be modified to eliminate all non-residential uses except those pre-existing in the building to remain at 405 Greenwich Ave.”

The space at 405 Greenwich Ave was the only one not located on Mason Street. It is currently home to an art gallery and is zoned CGBR.

The judge wrote, “There is no reference or other language that expressly or implicitly includes non residential uses under the umbrella of the affordable housing process or that would subject such uses to the protections and exemptions related to affordable housing applications.”

The judge also agreed with the Commission’s argument that “if the retail is to be so minimal, then this cuts against the argument that to remove it will have a substantial adverse impact in the viability of the affordable housing development.”

As for the modification requiring common charges being “commensurate and proportional for below market rate units when compared to market rate units,” the judge agreed with the Commission.